I'm not sure if this has been posted or linked on Slashdot before but the IPCC Final Report [bbc.co.uk][PDF Warning] is public as of today. The BBC has a summary [bbc.co.uk]:

Probable temperature rise between 1.8C and 4C

Possible temperature rise between 1.1C and 6.4C

Sea level most likely to rise by 28-43cm

Arctic summer sea ice disappears in second half of century

Increase in heatwaves very likely

Increase in tropical storm intensity likely

It's a 20 page report and I know we're all really busy but I think this is the first document one can read and really catch up on what's been decided recently in the scientific community.

I haven't seen anyone discredit this panel or this document yet. What I have seen is criticism from right wing papers about this report either being "unsurprising" or "offering no hope, grim." On the other hand, leftist papers have been in a sort of "we're doomed" sort of mode. I haven't really seen anyone stepping up to the plate and telling the public that it's on our consciouses now. We are responsible--if you have the money, start paying more for green products or products from carbon neutral companies. Increase incentive for companies to be carbon neutral. Right now, as a consumer, I don't know how I would figure out if the car I bought comes from a more or less environmentally friendly company. Consumers need to start driving this change because it sure the hell isn't going to be our ignorant president.

from the you're-wrong-and-i-think-mr.-lincoln-knows-why dept.

Also, Zonk, I think you mean Mr. Chase knows why [coinsite.com], Salmon P. Chase [wikipedia.org] is on the $10,000 bill. Offering nominal fees for paper and pen to write reports is one thing but when the incentive is a large percentage of my yearly income, I think Exxon should be ousted as scientifically backwards assholes.

Just because ExxonMobil paid someone, does not mean the arguments the scientist made are not valid, although they might as well be; same goes for the people who worked at the IPCC report. Let's stick to the actual arguments and data, instead of making cheap ad hominem attacks.

Just because ExxonMobil paid someone, does not mean the arguments the scientist made are not valid, although they might as well be; same goes for the people who worked at the IPCC report. Let's stick to the actual arguments and data, instead of making cheap ad hominem attacks.

No, it doesn't mean their scientific findings aren't valid. But it sure the hell does mean they're financially motivated. Here's what should happen: Exxon should hire scientists to research this. If the report comes up against global warming, the scientists get $10,000 grand and stay employed. If the report comes up proving global warming is our fault, the scientists get $10,000 and stay employed. You have to approach a hypothesis willing to disprove or prove it--otherwise you're not engaging in the scientific process. You're basically paying "scientists" money to say something.

Instead, we see Exxon offering money for the predetermined outcome of 'scientific' research. And that, my friend, is why I feel compelled to keep "making cheap ad hominem attacks." Because Exxon is pissing science down their leg and the public is paying attention to it when they shouldn't. Who's offering the $10,000 for the report proving global warming is our fault?

No, it doesn't mean their scientific findings aren't valid. But it sure the hell does mean they're financially motivated.

And the climate scientists who created this report aren't idealogically motivated? I'm sure some are. Some probably aren't. And scientists who respond to the $10,000 bounty may or may not be motivated. Frankly, I don't care about motivations. If you put out a bounty for an open source project, no one gets upset. Why should this be any different? If the scientist trades his/her credibility to create a fraudalent attack on the climate report that's unethical, but the fault of the scientist - not the bounty. ANd I have no doubt the life of such accusations will be short-lived.

If ExonMobile itself wants to offer bounties for this research I really don't care. Let the scientists try to do the research. They will either come up with a valid criticis, or they won't.

Here's the thing. If the people submitting to Exxon/Mobil are submitting made up bullshit then it shouldn't withstand review and become a laughingstock. If nothing else, that should help to strengthen the human derived global warming stance.

From where I stand though, it looks like both sides are playing fast and loose with the science to date. I guess I'll go read the new report and see if it says anything new.

This could make many hot places like Arizona and Texas, which now have August days of 120F, nigh uninhabitable.

But that is exactly my point - no studies I know of say this! They say the average will go up 6C maximum - and that the poles will melt. Think about it, the poles are going to go up above freezing from an average temperature of -15C. So the poles, call it 25% of the planet are going up 15C at least, and yet the planet as a whole only goes up 6C. The places that are currently warm or hot stay wa

Exxon-Mobil is not offering a bounty to anyone who can disprove human-caused global warming.

Certain scientists were approached privately and offered an exchange: They write a paper disagreeing with the UN climate study, and Exxon will pay them $10,000. The scientists were not asked to prove or disprove anything, simply to express a certain opinion.

Basically, Exxon doesn't know or care if the scientist is correct, or has scientifically proven that humans didn't cause global warming - that's not a requirement for payment. All that's required is that the scientist express the opinion that Exxon-Mobil wants.

Therefore, the entire issue has very little to do with science or the scientific method, because that's not what's going on here. If Exxon were offering funding to researchers who were testing and repeating existing climate change experiments and findings, it would be a little sketchy but we would have to respect their findings and deal with them through further research and peer review. However what Exxon is doing has nothing to do with new research or even testing existing findings, it is simply an attempt to get someone credible to express Exxon's opinion.

In order to celebrate mathematics in the new millennium, The Clay Mathematics Institute of Cambridge, Massachusetts (CMI) has named seven Prize Problems. The Scientific Advisory Board of CMI selected these problems, focusing on important classic questions that have resisted solution over the years. The Board of Directors of CMI designated a $7 million prize fund for the solution to these problems, with $1 million allocated to each. During the Millennium Meeting held on May 24, 2000 at the Collège de Fr

How is that different
From any other scientist who accepts a grant from a company - or from a government?

Well, many companies will control what can be published from the research they pay for, but when it comes to the government, that is not the case at all. They give you money to do research in a particular area. They do not give you money to reach particular conclusions. If they knew the conclusions you were going to reach, they wouldn't be funding you. Now do you see the difference?

In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)

So, if you ignore all research funded by environmental groups and all research funded by ExxonMobil and friends, what are you left with? Research that universally supports the idea that global warming is real and anthropogenic. So universal, that even Lindzen [opinionjournal.com] seems genuinely surprised that anyone would doubt that:

[Gregg Easterbrook] concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested.

If you put out a bounty for an open source project, no one gets upset. Why should this be any different?

What?!
You're saying that paying scientists to come to your conclusions, on a subject as important as climate change, is morally on par with paying programmers to write open source code?

They are paying for any papers that will cast any sort of doubt. This means "clutch at straws to find any possible way to cast uncertainty on this report, and we'll reward you handsomely". This is not moral in any way. This is like MS paying a bounty on an open source project so that it adopts an MS standard; it's abuse of the system for the companies own gain.

If you put out a bounty for an open source project, no one gets upset. Why should this be any different?

If you're paying for a project, you're paying for results. If you're paying for a report written a certain way, you're paying for propaganda.

Put another way, software has hard specifications, while science only has "the truth" (or a working model, anyway.) If you are specifically offering money for someone to produce a report that supports your view, that is not science.

If the scientist trades his/her credibility to create a fraudalent attack on the climate report that's unethical, but the fault of the scientist - not the bounty.

If a bribe is given to a policeman, both he and the person offering the bribe are committing a crime. It's a recognition of the fact that it takes two to tango, as it were. This situation is directly analogous.

If ExonMobile itself wants to offer bounties for this research I really don't care. Let the scientists try to do the research. They will either come up with a valid criticis, or they won't.

If the bounty was for someone who could prove (ha!) whether global warming was caused by human sources, then I would agree with you. But what they are looking for isn't the truth; in fact we know beyond any real doubt that humans have an effect on global weather. There can frankly be no question about this. The only thing there is question about now is the extent of that influence. So this reward constitutes a bribe, nothing more, intended to cause the expression of falsehoods. Well, it does constitute one other thing - an attempt to confuse the public, to keep them in disarray so they don't unite against the oil companies.

If the scientist trades his/her credibility to create a fraudalent attack on the climate report that's unethical, but the fault of the scientist - not the bounty.

You complain about ideological motivation, yet you yourself have fallen victim to it. Your ideal says that scientists should not be subject to the reality of human nature, greed being part of that nature, and that those who take advantage of it should not be held accountable for their part.

That is absurd. If someone wants to kill a man, and hires a hitman to do it, you can bet he is going to jail for conspiracy to commit murder (well if he's caught anyway).

I'm not saying that bribing a scientist is the same as murder. I am saying that paying someone to misrepresent the truth doesn't let you off the hook, just because the payee was willing to do it.

And the climate scientists who created this report aren't idealogically motivated? I'm sure some are. Some probably aren't. And scientists who respond to the $10,000 bounty may or may not be motivated. Frankly, I don't care about motivations. If you put out a bounty for an open source project, no one gets upset. Why should this be any different?

The scientific method relies upon hypothesis and testing, then publishing and interpreting the results of that testing and it is reviewed by peers. If you are only paid when the results of your testing indicate a particular item, which may or may not be true, you have direct motivation to break the scientific process. Your analogy involving open source bounties is different. Say someone offers a bounty to find security holes in product X. That is paying people to do research and find some hole, and there are always going to be holes. It is not paying them to prove a specific hole exists (result), which would be undermining the scientific method. In the case of global warming, you're starting with an answer "global warming is not man made" (result) and trying to find a reason. Sure there are lots of potential reasons why this might be the case, but none of them are science because you did not follow the scientific method. They are also a lot likely to be correct answers for the same reason. With a bounty on security holes in some project you're looking to find something, but not provide evidence for whether holes exist or not, simply to find any that you can. Whether or not a given hole exists and is exploitable can still be a scientific process.

Let the scientists try to do the research.

Part of the failing of the US education system is that people refer to researchers or engineers or technologists as scientists, when in truth a scientist is someone who uses the scientific method. The reason for this misapplication is because science comes up with lots of useful solutions and thus has a lot of credibility. The fact is, tis lobbying group is not offering to pay scientists, because the offer precludes people acting in that role form participating.

Except when the subject of climate change comes up. Then, it's all about consensus, and anyone who has a different theory, or who criticizes the current theories is a denier and a foe of science.

Making decisions is about consensus. Science establishes facts and provides support for theories.

Is it a bad thing to hear from those who don't agree with, or who think the study was not done correctly?

It is a bad thing when hearing from those people is disguised as science, but in fact does not follow the scientific method. The method is to take facts and existing scientific theories to formulate a testable hypothesis, test the hypothesis, then present the methodology and results of that testing along with analysis for peer review. That is science. It works, which is why it is important to us. Hearing opinions is not necessarily science. If a researcher looks at the existing theories and tries to find something wrong with them, or find some way to argue against them, but does not create a specific, testable hypothesis and then experiment, then they have not done any science. Trying to pass that off as science and calling that person a scientist is deceptive. A person is only a scientist when acting in that role. This company is offering to pay people to not act in that role, but publish papers anyway. That is deceptive.

Wouldn't this rather be a continuation of "interpreting the results of that testing...by peers?"

No. Unless they form a different hypothesis and test it, it is not science. The method relies upon testing to determine what is true. Looking at existing, known data (to the researcher) and trying to draw conclusions from it is not science and does not provide the same time tested method of correctly determining facts. I can find facts to support any belief. When I come up with a test for that belief, perform that test, and analyze the results openly with input from peers, I'm a scientist.

If you're still not understanding this, reply again and I'll provide you with an example of how all this works and why studies funded to look for problems are not credible or useful.

The earth is not a data set, it is a subject of study. Statistical probability applies to the number of different, independent methods that correlate with the temperature of the earth, in the past (for example). Those probabilities and degrees of certainty are covered in the study. Trying to apply it other things is ignorant.

You tested one earth. Your predictions (made by an independent third party who was only given your model) came true how many times? Where else would such limited informati

The vast bulk of the "Climate Change Science" has been funded by left leaning foundations and think tanks.

Like the National Science Foundation? I think you are rather confused as to where the climatology community gets its funding.

The climate has not been studied long enough or with enough precision to predict with much confidence what is going to happen in the medium to long term.

That depends on what you mean by "medium" and "long". The climate can be predicted with rough accuracy out to a century or so. A lot of the uncertainty is actually about what humans will do in response to global warming.

The Little Ice Age and the Midieval Warm Period are good examples of times when making predictions based on a couple of hundred years worth of data would produce conclusions unsupported by what we know happened thereafter

Predictions are not based on just extrapolating a past trend, you know. They also involve modeling the physical processes involved in climate. You can't just point to some part of a time series where there was a variation from the normal and claim it is inherently unpredictable. On the basis of time series analysis alone, it would be. On the basis of physics, it's a different matter.

consensus of thought by people making predictions based on inadequate data in complex systems they don't understand will yield policy decisions that will seem laughable in the fullness of time.

That may be true, it may be not, but policy has to be driven by one's best judgement at the time, not hindsight. "Doing nothing" is also a policy choice with potential consequences; it is not logically the default decision one should make in the absence of perfect certainty.

No, it doesn't mean their scientific findings aren't valid. But it sure the hell does mean they're financially motivated.

Well, threatening climatologists with decertification doesn't invalidate their findings either, but it sure as hell means they are being forcibly "motivated".

Instead, we see the weather channel threatening climatologists' jobs for the predetermined outcome of 'scientific' research. And that, my friend, is why I feel compelled to keep "making cheap ad hominem attacks." Because the Weather

For fear that you were miss-informed rather than just stupid: the incident you are referring to was one weather person's blog referring to other weather people (meterologist not climatologist). I realize Republicans have a real problem with the difference between weather [wikipedia.org] and climate [wikipedia.org].

I realize that in your and Rush L.'s mind there is perfect analogy between a random blogger and Exxon corporation (who made 180 million dollars a day [nytimes.com] last year); roughly like comparing a grocery store parking lot speed bump to the Himalayas.

it's perfectly OK for Universities to fire those that don't hold up the group think and for Virgin Air's Richard Branson to give a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget.

And none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that ExxonMobil is

Last year, the Sierra club provided more than 90 million dollars to climate scientists. What does this mean? Who knows. Both sides of the discussion are paying scientists to create global warming studies. Whether the money is tied to the result implicitly o explicitly doesn't really matter. It is sad that we are at a point where we can't have a legitimate scientific inquiry into this area because of the shady tactics of both sides. Its also sad that some politicians have decided to make political hay with unrealistic plans and promises. In 1997, the Senate vote against Kyoto was unopposed- no many of those same senators are saying its the president's fault for not implementing climate control. With an issue this charged and controversial, I have doubts we can reach an effective solution, at least in the political arena. Our best hope? Use the market. Toyota is rapidly passing GM in no small part because of the strength of its hybrids. Now, GM and Ford are reacting by offering more environmentally aware options. Look at BP and GE's ad campaigns- they both stress environmental concerns. Whether their actions carry through, we don't know yet. But at least some of the companies are recognizing the importance of the enivornment to the consumer. If we, as consumers, continue to push this issue through our purchases, some real change can be made before the politicians can decide on legislation.

Whether the money is tied to the result implicitly o explicitly doesn't really matter.

It matters if the result is tied to money at all. Any research that starts with a conclusion which it tries to find proof for is not following the scientific method and is not science. If some government grant was worded such that is is contingent upon proving some conclusion, that is not science either. To my knowledge this is the only case where funding was offered for research starting with a result. I've seen other cases where companies paid for research, but reserved the right to publish the results or not, and then buried science that disagreed with their predetermined opinion, but I don't know of any other attempt to so openly buy an unscientific study and pass it off as science.

Well, imagine that you're a scientist being paid by the Sierra club to do global warming research, and you turn around and say to them "well, sorry guys, but it turns out all this global warming is actually just a product of increased solar activity". Or you're a scientist hired by greenpeace to research the dangers of nuclear reactors, and you turn around and tell them "gee guys, it looks like Nuclear power is actually the most viable and least polluting source of energy we have!". What do you think will

Instead, we see Exxon offering money for the predetermined outcome of 'scientific' research.

And from the article (you DID read it right?): (emphasis mine below)

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.

"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."

Definitely sounds like "Exxon offering money for the predetermined outcome" to me. Oh wait, they want the strengths and weaknesses.

But it's all academic (pun intended) anyways. If you question any aspect of any of it, your credentials are pulled. What a great atmosphere to foster discussion and research in.

Just because ExxonMobil paid someone, does not mean the arguments the scientist made are not valid, although they might as well be; same goes for the people who worked at the IPCC report. Let's stick to the actual arguments and data, instead of making cheap ad hominem attacks.

What you're saying makes perfect sense concerning the debate amoungst scientists, but when it comes to the popular debate, large amounts of funding will result in a proportional amount of material. Since the population at large don't have the wherewithall to analyse the findings, they look instead to the volume of the work produced and the reputation of those producing it.

In the abscence of the capability to analyse the science itself, it help to know where the funding comes from. If the science is then picked up by a scientist who's sources appear not to be compromised, then it is reasonable to assume that it was sound science in the first place. This filter layer is the meaning of peer review. In the abscence of this filter layer, it is reasonable for the population to know that the funding is selecting for particular conclusions, thus possibly prejudicing the data or the analysis of that data.

Knowledge of funding is part of the mechanism by which the non-scientist protects him or herself against junk science.

Maybe in a perfect simulation of a perfect world. But the history backs up the common sense: oil companies pay for science that serves only their agenda, which is to cover up the true costs of their industry to protect their maximum profits at everyone else's expense.

Pointing out real bias is not "ad hominem". Corporations are not "hominems". Diluting the obvious interest conflict demonstrated in oil companies buying scientists to write against the IPCC report is work for the oil companies. And pitting the extreme, unaccountable oil companies' self interest against the factual analysis of the IPCC report is pretending to "balance" the facts against propaganda.

Let's not game the system any more, now that the seriousness of the threat is finally being widely analyzed and reported after generations of lies, coverups and propaganda all serving the oil companies at the expense of everyone else.

Also, Zonk, I think you mean Mr. Chase knows why, Salmon P. Chase is on the $10,000 bill. Offering nominal fees for paper and pen to write reports is one thing but when the incentive is a large percentage of my yearly income, I think Exxon should be ousted as scientifically backwards assholes

I don't imagine there's anything to be done about the company, but I'll wager those scientists who rolled over for cash are going to suffer greatly among their fellow researchers.

The problem with most institutions like CEI is that when they fund the research, they typically add a clause that says that the results of the research cannot be published without their explicit authorization. (This happens in other fields [boston.com], as well.) This is most likely not the case with either Branson or the Sierra Club. If it is, I'll gladly call shenanigans on them, as well.

Also, Senator Inhofe is not exactly the best source for such information. His position on the relative importance of the environment is well documented [washingtonpost.com].

Environmental groups fund research because their mission is to steward the environment, and they require accurate data to do that. The interest of ExxonMobil, however, isn't in acquiring accurate climate data. Their mission isn't impacted directly by climate change. Rather it is only impacted if they are politically required to modify their behavior to mitigate climate change.

The environmental groups would be perfectly happy to learn that climate change wasn't a problem, if the research showed that. Why? Because they have a number of other active priorities too. There are issues of species and habitat loss which have nothing to do with climate change - and which were sufficient to motivate donations to the environmental groups before there was any hint of climate change. There are also issues of various sorts of pollution which are unconnected to climate change. The environmental groups are overwhelmed with good causes, and if they can get themselves out from under a few of them, they will still have more than they can handle, and still have vast fund-raising appeal. They have no vested interest in global climate change being as serious an issue as science says it is; they are following the science, not leading it. But since they do need to follow the science, they fund it. ExxonMobil by contrast has a strong interest in discrediting the science. Consider:

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.

"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."

This is deliberately-misleading propaganda. He's implying that there are two equal groups. There aren't: Within science, 99+% of credentialed professionals agree there's a major problem, thus the new international report. Yet the AEI, by commissioning statements of doubt, wants to achieve some sort of 50/50 compromise between doubt and belief. That's to say, they want to deny the near-certainty of 99+% of the scientists qualified to make judgments in the field, and return the issue in the popular mind to the "he said, she said" status that ExxonMobil has so successfully promulgated in the media, science-ignorant as the communications majors who do most of the reporting are.

Offering nominal fees for paper and pen to write reports is one thing but when the incentive is a large percentage of my yearly income, I think Exxon should be ousted as scientifically backwards assholes.

I wonder if ExxonMobil is actually still funding the American Enterprise Institute. Late last year they announced their intention [cnn.com] to stop funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and I was assuming (I know, dangerous) that they were going to stop funding all similar institutes. Here is their official try-to -please-everyone-without-admitting-any-guilt [exxonmobil.com] statement for those who are interested.

Micheal Savage, a radio talk show host here in the USA, was explaining to his millions of listeners yesterday that the so-called global warming trend is nothing but a natural cycle that occurs through the grace of God from time to time, and that it's sheer impudence to imply that mere man can cause such a global condition. He also went on to say that several thousand ducks waiting outside his SF bungalow upon his return from a trip to Florida were a sign from God. So who ya going to believe?

Well, God, obviously. He told me that he sent those ducks just to fuck with Micheal Savage. We had a good laugh. Then God asked if I wanted to strip down to our underwear and, you know, wrestle a bit so I told him I had to leave 'cause I had work in the morning. He always gets like that when he drinks.

What I have seen is criticism from right wing papers about this report either being "unsurprising" or "offering no hope, grim." On the other hand, leftist papers have been in a sort of "we're doomed" sort of mode.

Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.

However, they both do go on to say that it would be irresponsible to just sit back and do nothing. Also, we have to adapt to a warmer earth.

Does the report give any basis for this claim? There are politics on all sides of this issue, because there is nothing better than a crisis to give power-hungry bastards like Al Gore and George W. Bush the excuse to enhance their position. The only differentiator is their crisis of choice. The debate about what to do about anthropogenic climate change is at real risk of being lost in the noise made by anti-scientific hysterics on both sides.

Although the anonymous coward choose a foolish group to link to there are lots of intelligent environmentalists who disagree with the current view of "Environmentalism"...Dr. Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace, left Greenpeace in 1986 after he saw Greenpeace became more concerned with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization rather than environmental issues. He had this to say on Global Warming recently "most difficult issue facing the scientific community today in terms of being able to actually

I always hate it how whenever Exxon-Mobil does something ridiculous, "oil companies" (collectively) get blamed -- Exxon-Mobil being one of the few dinosaurs left who still denies global warming (and does so quite actively). Meanwhile, companies like Shell and BP fund research into carbon sequestration and are among the world's largest investors in wind and solar (both in commercial production and research). But they're "oil companies", so they get lumped in with Exxon's BS.Interestingly enough, I have it

Why do people always assume A leads to Z? Just because these guys have morals does not mean they would make good politicians. It's like saying "That psycho who killed the most people is clearly the best leader for the squad", except he has no clue how to lead, just maim people.

If a report were issued that global warming was not manmade and a thinktank offered a similar reward, would you also call it a bribe?If (and this is a very strong IF) they do this right, what they are doing is using money to accelerate the scientific debate. If there are errors in the report that other scientists can find, there is now incentive to find them and weed them out. It's the scientific process pushed forward by money.

The downside of it will, of course, be that a lot of "scientists" will make wild

When a scientist takes money to report a specific result, that's a bribe.

How about when a scientist is funded to point out the ways in which another (paid!) scientist's conclusions may be either wrong or taken in a politically-driven context that's all about fear? When a scientist is paid to challenge widely-held beliefs that happen to be peculiarly embraced by one end of the political spectrum, and used as leverage to push legislative agendas that are more about redistribution of income or other unrelated non-science-ish stuff, we usually call that... science. You should be delighted that scientists are being offered money to publicly challenge the conclusions of other scientists. If the challenge is weak, the other scientists' findings are strengthened. If the challenge prevails, then it was essential that it was done. What's not to like?

This is just propaganda from the liberal controlled greeny environmental industry, making shit up to slander the good name of an honest, productive and responsible corporation. Everyone knows global warming scientists are rich as Midas from all the money funneled to them by their commie-pinko-socialist masters, of course they don't need to take money from an honest corporation! Just think, this poor industry, barely making ends meet, scrapes up a little money to try to help fund some REAL SCIENCE, and these

Once, warning og climate change might have been damaging for you career. Now, disputing climate change, something everyone now believes to be a reality, will do the same. This is why bribes like this is no longer effective.Only thing that works for a big companies now is to think "if you can't beat'em, join'em" and go green, or at least seemingly green.

Let's hope it brings a change for the better. Anyone else who actually feels a bit optimistic that we're learning to take a bit more responsibility for ou

If Exxon wants to fund climate research, good. Once their research comes out then if it disagrees with your pet theory then argue based on the facts, but don't denigrate the funding of those who may interpret things differently than you do. Doing otherwise is following in the footsteps of the church who forced Copernicus to recant because it disagreed with their theory.

$10K is a pretty damn paltry bribe. $100K research grants are pretty common for those in the sciences, with $1M+ programs not unheard of. As for personal salary, a PhD college professor in the sciences is easily at $100k+/year when you include summer salary.

If you are going to bribe someone, make sure you at least get in the right ballpark of "interesting". Trash my carreer for $10K? Don't make me laugh.

a PhD college professor in the sciences is easily at $100k+/year when you include summer salary

PhD college professors who are experts in climatology all agree that global warming is an effect of burning fossil fuels. People who are accepting those $10k aren't scientists, they are just mediocre writers, almost certainly unemployed, for whom that money makes all the difference in the world.

Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming.

Has he abandoned empiricism and scientific method in favor of rationalism? Disavowed science? Become an Objectivist? Had his degrees revoked for fraud? Who is this guy? [wikipedia.org] And if his training is in oceanography, how did he get into civil engineering?

...that every single move taken by the tobacco industry in the last 15 years is going to be repeated in exact fashion by the oil industry?

- This particular case is exactly the same as the tobacco industry paying to have scientists say there was no connection between smoking and cancer (or any of the other ailments).
- The paying off of lobbyists is normal, but was made infamous by "big tobacco". Now it's "Big Oil" making sure senators get to make frequent holidays in the Grand Caymans.
- Some might even point out that all of the gas guzzling autos are the cool toys for the younger crowd...just as people might say Joe Camel was targeted at America's youth. I, of course, would not make such a brash statement; but only to say some might.

There are plenty of other examples of the pattern being repeated, but I'm too tired to write them all out. Short version, the only thing that's changed is the product

Now before we all cry bloody murder, why are we calling this a bribe? There was a report released on global climate change. One company is hoping that there were shortcomings and inaccuracies in that report. That company doesn't have the scientific capability to refute the findings, so they are hiring scientists to document any and all shortcomings for them.

As far as I can tell, there is no proof that they asked the scientists to lie. Unless, of course, you have already made up your mind that global warming is a fact and any attempt to refute it is corrupt and evil.

The company involved is obviously biased, but I don't see an attempt to refute a study as evil in and of itself.

There are several shortcomings in your post.The problem is, the FUD-nitpick attack really has no defense.

To wit, regarding your post:

You should have used a comma after the first "Now".

The article summary did not propose criminal sanctions against the actors it describes. Nobody is planning to cry "bloody murder", so your estimate of the number wanting to do this ("we all") is evidently inaccurate.

You describe "one company" as hoping for shortcomings and inaccuracies in the report, but the probable truth is

Couched in terms of an offer to write 'dissenting papers' against the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, several scientists contacted for the article refused the offers on conflict of interest grounds

How about refusing on the grounds that research and scientific opinion should not be for sale or political motive? It's pretty sad only one person did so: Professor Schroeder.

Scientists often talk big, but nothing shuts them up faster than a threat to their funding, and there's no

Just like the other researchers were "bribed" into doing the "global warming" research in the first place. It's called funding folks. It's what you do when you don't have a bunch of religious zealots to spread your viewpoint for free or you need to entice credible resources to risk their life, limb and career disagreeing against said zealots.

There is no impartial scientist to be found. As earth is a closed system -- we're all here for the duration -- we all have a vested interest in the future. It makes little difference whether a study is financed by a corporation like ExxonMobil or by a green group with deep pockets; both have agendas, and in the final analysis, either the scientific methods are sound, or they're not, regardless of who is funding.

The problem up to now has been the tendency of many to assume that a) because a study is endorsed by scientists, it must therefore be valid, and b) that if it is financed by a green organization or a government, it is therefore more trustworthy than if it were funded by a multinational corporation. Both assumptions are false. Of all the scientists on the planet, only a very small percentage are competent in the the analysis of climatological data, and of those, even fewer are knowledgeable with respect to the long term studies involved. As to funding and impartiality, every group I can think of has an agenda here, be they environmental groups, governments, or corporations.

What is clearly needed is a rational study by qualified scientists, and discussion and even attacks on the conclusions drawn by other groups of equally qualified scientists. This is essentially the kind of thing that is done to keep scholarly journals on track. Articles are refereed by people with knowledge and experience in the field.

Finally, one of the chief problems in trying to analyze the existing data is that we possess reasonably accurate data for only a very brief period of time, and from those data, we hope to extrapolate global long term trends. In undertaking that task, trends are extrapolated forward and backward, and assumptions are stacked upon assumptions. The further we get from today, in either direction, the less reliable are those assumptions. And let us not forget that we are still unable to reliably predict the weather more than a few days in advance, yet we have sufficient hubris to believe we can predict 100 years forward.

There is no impartial scientist to be found. As earth is a closed system -- we're all here for the duration -- we all have a vested interest in the future. It makes little difference whether a study is financed by a corporation like ExxonMobil or by a green group with deep pockets; both have agendas, and in the final analysis, either the scientific methods are sound, or they're not, regardless of who is funding.

Sure, in the strictest sense, there can be no completely disinterested person on this issue because we're all stakeholders of this rock we call Earth. That being said, there are some people who are far more invested in a particular outcome being true (or at least publicly believed) than others. You're kidding yourself if you think that "scientists" funded/employed by the most profitable industry in history (which has everything to lose, if anthropogenic climate change is real/accepted) are just as objective or impartial on this matter as regular scientists working off federal grants or university funding.

Secondly, the philosophy of science isn't as objective as you might think. Sometimes your methods can be right, your experiments verified and repeatable, but your conclsions dead wrong. This happens frequently and is what makes scientific progress so difficult. However, ill-intentioned people can devise experiments that intentionally lead to false or misleading conclusions. This is the essence of bad science.

The big hint, for laymen that this is taking place, is when such studies ignore the highly supported, well-documented claims of opposing theories and tend to focus on minor (often neglible) discrepancies or areas where there just isn't enough data to know for sure. Take Intelligent Design (ID), for example. Proponents of ID make no effort to debunk sequence homology studies or the fossil record, because doing so is extremely difficult if not impossible. Instead, ID supporters focus on a few select cases where the exact nature of biomolecular events is unknown (for now) and from that draw sweeping, and unsupported, conclusions about the entire theory of evolution.

You'll note that global warming opponents do the same thing. You'll see their papers study carbon sinks (which, even if true, might be neglible in the scheme of things) or how variations in solar output (something that isn't well understood at this point) might fit the data. But what you don't see are papers denying the fact that increased cabon dioxide in the air is anthropogenic or disputing the basic science behind greenhouse gases in general.

And let us not forget that we are still unable to reliably predict the weather more than a few days in advance, yet we have sufficient hubris to believe we can predict 100 years forward.

That's like saying that because its impossible to know which direction an individual atom in a solution might go from instant to instant that net diffusion isn't predictable. And yet, diffusion is practically a mathematical law, in practice.

Sometimes, things are far easier to predict in aggregate than they are individually. Take lifespan, for instance. Just because I can't predict, to the day, when an indvidual squirrel might die, that fact has no bearing upon my ability to make stunningly accurate predictions on the average lifespan of a group of squirrels. Furthermore, I'll remind you that the data for global climate change extends into thousands of years. It's not unreasonable to expect an accurate extrapolation for the next fifty or one-hundred years from that.

This kind of attempt to brible people to peddle an agenda should carry consequences similar to that of obstruction of justice like tampering with a witness. This situation is tampering with science -as best understood. And the "scientists" who support or "cherry-pick" their data should be held to the same standards as front-people are held accountable if they (mis)-represent a product they know to be short of what is claimed --as it is in some states.

Really, what do you expect exxon et al to say, do... look at the tobacco lobbies and their efforts to discredit studies and such that say cigarettes are not addictive using their own lobby-funded studies.
In the rest of the world, and I would say most of the US, global warming is not controversial. Do wing nuts prop up their people to go on camera and say "it ain't happening". Sure, but so did the tobacco people. Most thinking people can see past this type of stuff and not get swept up in the propaganda wars. Unfortunately many do get suckered in by it. They have a lot of cash to throw at ads and lobbying these days due to the price of oil, and they want to keep that cash flowing.
Like the addictive tobacco controversy... this one is dying. Expect to see more thrashing from the lobbies as it goes down for the count.

I just have wonder what is wrong in Exxon-Mobile. Every other major oil company in the world has admitted that global warming is for real and it's probably caused by man. In example Jorma Ollila [wikipedia.org] who is the chairman of Shell has said it an interview that global warming is real and the only way to tackel it is to reduce carbon emissions. He continued and said that when he came to work in Shell, he was amazed by the concern that Shell employees had about global warming. So the question is what is wrong in Exxon-Mobile? Are their executives so locked into an equation (oil = money) that they have forgotten that it's really (oil = energy = money) and that a company can have other forms of energy sources than just oil?

Several European oil companies (most notably Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum) have gotten involved in other energy sources than just oil (hydrogen, solar, wind and others).

However, the US oil companies (such as ExxonMobil and Chevron) refuse to acknowledge that any energy sources other than oil even exist and are fighting tooth and nail all alternative energy sources and anything that would show that humans are killing the planet with fossil fuels.

Why aren't the US companies following the lead of the Europeans and trying to become world leaders in the new technologies before someone else (such as Shell or BP) beats them to it?

You mean the same Cheney/Bush who, when he took office in 2000, created his own automotive energy project, moved the existing hybrid vehicle project( 7 years old ) into this new project, axed the old project, created and funded a hydrogen/hype vehicle project, then axed the hybrid vehicle project? The list goes on and on about the deals Cheney and Bush made which stalled or killed off efficiency projects and labs while making sure their buddies in the oil industry would grow their profits. Remember during the 2004 election campaign when Bush made a visit to a renewable energy lab in Colorado? It was found out a week earlier that he'd cut their funding and they were going to layoff over 40 employees right before Bush arrived. They got special funding in a matter of days before Bush arrived but the funding was only going to last about 1 year....

So this is not surprising. What gets my goat is that all the Republicans were just acting like lemmings and allowing Cheney/Bush to do whatever the wanted. Only now that he's a lame duck and the public FINALLY figured out Iraq is a screw-up, are some Republicans making statements against their( Cheney/Bush ) policies.

Would it be a 'bribe' for me to hire a criminal defense attorney and experts to poke holes in the prosecution's case if I were accused of a crime? That's how I see what's being described here. This is a company being accused of environmentally inimical behavior and wanting to find out if there are flaws in the case being made against it.

A new study shows there may be a conflict of interest amongst some climate scientists.

The study, done over the course of the last 60 years, shows some startling conclusions:

- many climate scientists are employed by public universities, which themselves are funded by governments- the employment of many climate scientists is contingent upon publication in referreed journals. Those journals themselves are paneled by other government-employed climate scientists- a key finding of climate science research is that climate scientists should have more say in public policy- another key finding of climate science research is that considerably more government money needs to be spent doing climate science research at institutions that pay climate scientists with government money

Galileo's many discoveries, especially the universe revolved around the sun and not the earth, put him at odds with the papacy and many universities. He was pressured into silence for almost two decades. Towards the end of his life he faced the Inquisition, was compelled to abjure, and spent his life imprisonment under house arrest.

It is important not to confuse this report with science. It is also important in general not to confuse the claims and opinions of scientists with science. This report contains claims and charactorizations. I suppose a lot of the data in this report probably comes from scientific studies, but as they are not cited (anywhere that I can find), they can't be confirmed or disconfirmed, or even put into context. The gist of the report are completely subjective charactorizations about various horrible things being "likely" or "very likely" to increase, or to be attributable to human actions. In other words the gist of the report is handwaving nonsense. Scientists don't have Special Knowledge not available to the rest of us. They are not soothsayers, priests or magicians. Even if they were, there were more politicians working on this report than scientists.

One thing of note from the report, which I can independently confirm:

Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar temperatures at that time were 3 to 5C higher than present[...]

Since the last interglacial period peaked out at 4 to 6m higher seas, and 3 to 5 C higher temperatures, then in the absense of evidence suggesting we should peak elsewhere, we should assume that the global climate will max out at similar levels, apart from any human infulence. (After that happens, maybe the IPCC can tell the politicians how to make new laws to encourage greenhouse gasses emission, to somehow keep the next ice age from coming along and killing us all.)

I think global climatic changes we are living through are the most significant challenge for the human race. It is best if governments respond intelligently through legislation, but that will not happen unless we, as individuals, are willing to take initiative in our daily lives.

To that end, I have sold my car in 2003 and living without one ever since. That's rather difficult, as I live in Toronto uptown, but I found that I can easily rent (Enterprise is my favourite) when I absolutely need to; my life and my health have improved and am generally happier this way, not to mention that it's much cheaper. I also try to avoid buying gas from Esso (for the few times I need to rent), because I disapprove of Exxon and what they stand for.

That being said, I believe that Exxon is doing a public service by spending their money this way. If I were a scientist offered money to play the devil's advocate, I would jump at the opportunity. This is because good ideas and good science do not come from unanimity. Dissent, if taken seriously, can only improve the scientific discourse and is the best sanity check against groupthink [wikipedia.org].

Maybe it's because I lived my formative years in a communist dictatorship, or maybe it's because I loved debating and miss judging those university tournaments, but I often found that I learned the most about a subject by listening to dissenting opinions - opinions I disagreed with.

If you could scientifically (key word) demonstrate that humans made no significant contribution to global warming (within a certain margin of error, of course), you'd have no problem getting grants - especially from the current administration. (OK, maybe not "no problem". You also have to be able to write halfway well. Let's just say it'd be easier than if you were just a conformist scientist who didn't produce any novel research.) They do ultimately control the purse strings, and if there was some grand co

I've seen this claim quite a few times; could you quote a source for it? Because if you're talking about government grants (specifically, federal grants), are you seriously making the claim I think you are?

As opposed to scientiests who depend on grant money that only comes in if they say the exact opposite.

This should be added to the list of well known trolls!

It seems there are those (cannot imagine who they could POSSIBLY be) who want to convince the public that agreeing with or studying global warming is some new get rich quick scheme for scientists;-) The scientific community has been quietly (and largely un-funded) been studying the problem of "global warming" and man's effects on it for over 100 years! The first well know scientist I'm aware of to really bring this forward was Svante Arrhenius [wikipedia.org]. Here [ac-paris.fr] is an article he published on the topic in 1896. Far from raking in the money because of his research as you suggest, this Nobel prize winner was widely critisized and had a lot of trouble getting any presigious posts because of his views.

Since him, thousands of other scientists have toiled in obscurity studying this field. Over the MANY years, these largely annonymous scientists have managed to compile and report on their data which points in some troubling directions for our future. Because of this, one would hope more and more money will go toward thier research (sadly today more money still goes toward trying to debunk them by organizations with VERY conflicting agendas).

Yes, there are some bad "scientists" out there which will sell themselves to any religious cult or multi-billon dollar company out there, but these are the VAST minority. You think scientists (especially climate scientists) have choosen that field for the celebrity and wealth that awaits??? Seriously???.

It's worth taking note that 30 years ago these same people were claiming an ice age was heading our way.

This is an urban myth that has been debunked numerous times already. Only a small amount of scientists in the '70s were thinking about ice ages, and most of them were afraid of nuclear winter scenarios (which remain a possibility if a Cold War-style massive exchange were to take place), not gradual climate change per se.

it's worth taking note that 30 years ago these same people were claiming an ice age was heading our way.

I don't think the consensus on that has changed; there's still an ice age due. The issue is timescales: we're expecting an ice age at some point in the next 100,000 years; the global warming report is about the next 100. And, of course, the latter will certainly affect the effect of the former. You can't really complain that something was predicted at some time in the next millennia and it hasn't happened after 30 years...

I won't argue with your thoughts (in fact I agree that different opinions need to be expressed and taken seriously), but I think there might be a very big message here when considering how things played out.

Just think about you would feel if you had a dissenting opinion and then offered cash to write about how you disagree. I don't know about you, but as long as writing the paper wasn't going to destroy my career, I'd be 100% on board to make the easy money for doing what I believed in.

Someone posted the difference between legitimate and illegitimate scientific funding yesterday in the comments on Slashdot. Legitimate funding is when you pay someone to do research in a specific area (eg. climate change). Illegitimate funding is when you pay someone to research a specific conclusion (eg. climate change is right/wrong), because then you're assuming the conclusion.

Dude! Ice that has existed for thousands of years is disappearing now. Arctic and antarctic species are in danger of extinction. Land masses that have been covered with ice since before the dawn of man are now available for farming! There's some real obvious signs of things that are just not right. Forget about the other obvious things like acid rain killing the fish... we somehow addressed that concern did we?

This isn't guilt for existance, it's guilt for being sloppy assholes who care little about the world we live in. There are ways to live and be clean about it. It's possibly "expensive" or otherwise a departure from what we are accustomed. So what?

I feel guilty. I can't afford to live in ways that are cleaner or I most certainly would. I can't do any of those nifty money-saving things like power from the sun or wind and earning money back from "the grid" because I live in an apartment. I cannot afford to buy a new, more efficient, car let alone a hybrid or electric. I can only WISH the people who make their money selling stuff to the world's population would care enough to take a hit from retooling and selling us stuff that's better for the world.